A scientist is part of what the Polish philosopher of science Ludwik Fleck called a “thought collective”: a group of people exchanging ideas in a mutually comprehensible idiom. The group, suggested Fleck, inevitably develops a mind of its own, as the individuals in it converge on a way of communicating, thinking and feeling.

This makes scientific inquiry prone to the eternal rules of human social life: deference to the charismatic, herding towards majority opinion, punishment for deviance, and intense discomfort with admitting to error. Of course, such tendencies are precisely what the scientific method was invented to correct for, and over the long run, it does a good job of it. In the long run, however, we’re all dead, quite possibly sooner than we would be if we hadn’t been following a diet based on poor advice.

Scientists have described three new species of mouse lemurs. They live in the South and East of Madagascar and increase the number of known mouse lemur species to 24. As little as 20 years ago, only two species of these small, nocturnal primates were known. New genetic methods and expeditions to remote areas have made the new descriptions possible.

Fascinating!Given that LIGO gravitaional wave detection has been reported, are there follow-ups to this paper discussing the results?Or, more realistically perhaps, will there be and can you/will you share them when the hoped-for follow-up appears?Thanks for this regardless, definitely fascinating material.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Usually I wouldn't link to articles from Susan Mazur because she miss-represents science in the name of some paradigm shift that she want to initiate although all the evidence is against it. But one shouldn't miss the well diserved response she received from one of organizers of a Royal Society Meeting on "New trends in evolutionary biology: biological, philosophical and social science perspectives who was sick of Mazur's abuse of said meeting:

Quote

“Could I request that you stop referring to the forthcoming RS-BA meeting (“New Trends in Evolutionary Biology: Biological, Philosphical and Social Science Perspectives”), and to the extended evolutionary synthesis, more generally, as in some way advocating a “paradigm shift”. Such language is both misleading (the vast majority of scientists working towards an extended synthesis do not seek revolutionary change in neo-Darwinism) and counterproductive (such talk undermines calm scientific discussion by creating an unnecessarily emotive and antagonistic atmosphere). I view the Kuhnian model as superseded long ago: the data suggests that sciences rarely if ever change through “revolutions”. Lakatos’ framework of “research programmes” offers a more up-to-date, accurate and useful conceptualization of (gradual and progressive) scientific change. The extended evolutionary synthesis is best regarded as an alternative research programme, entirely complementary to orthodox evolutionary biology. Talk of “paradigm shift” gives the false impression that the differences amongst evolutionary biologists are far more extreme than they actually are. . . .”

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."